SRIKANT PODDAR Vs. ANJU KUMARI & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 20th June, 2012, passed by Shri B.B. Mangal Murti, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda, in Matrimonial Case No. 76/2009, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the appellant (original applicant) under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant (original applicant) had filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion. It was stated therein that the marriage of the appellant (original applicant) was solemnised with the respondent no. 1 in the year 1974 and out of the said wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. Further case of the appellant (original applicant) was that on account of his efforts, respondent no. 1, who was a matriculate, obtained service as a teacher at Primary School, Benakurah. On account of village politics, a case being Misc. Case No. 18 of 1991 was instituted by respondent no. 1 before the learned C.J.M., Sahibganj but the same was dismissed on 22.08.1992. It was also the case of the appellant (original applicant) that the respondent no. 1 in his absence was living adulterous life with one Ram Bilas Paswan and according to him, coincidentally on 6.7.1994 when he visited village Kajrail, both the respondents herein were found in a compromising position. Further case of the appellant (original applicant) is that the respondent no. 1 had voluntary sexual intimacy with several persons including one Mohan Ravidas, who was a teacher, which, according to the appellant ( original applicant) was apparent from the letters written by the mother of respondent no. 1.

(3.) On being noticed, the respondent no. 1 appeared and filed her written statement, in which she had denied the allegations levelled against her by the appellant (original applicant). She further in her written statement had stated that she had indeed filed a case for maintenance before the learned C.J.M., Sahibganj but due to intervention of well-wishers, the matter was compromised, which resulted in dismissal of the said case. She had further stated that a criminal case was instituted by her against the appellant (original applicant) and 12 others under sections 307 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending.